West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-09-23

not wrong; and to profess that the
Bible forbids intoxicants is to weak
en- religious influences and to dis
credit the sincerity of the argument.
Assuming then that the use ofin-
toxicants is not intrinsically sinful,
we come TO the second, and the only
other ground for church action,
which may be thus stated:
,. The CIVIL LAW SHOULD COM
NAND TOTAL ABSTINENCE BECAUSE
SOME PERSONS DRINK TO EXCESS.
The proposition thus stated does
not raise the question t the sinful
ness of drinking; the proposition is,
that the evils resulting from the
abuse of intOXicants are, IN many
cases, so enormous as TO make it a
matter of public policy to forbid the
manufacture and sale of liquor, and,
being a matter of public policy,
church influence should be exerted
to accomplish the proposed lesisla-
ton.
Let us analyze this proposition
and bring its component parts dis
tinctly into view.
ND Drinking in moderation is
not a sin; ~ Many persons drink
to excess which is a sin; (3) Drunk
enness by some persons brings such
enormous evils that, the welfare of
society, (public policy,) requires a
law to forbid the manufacture and
sale of liquor, and therefore, "a 1t
is positive christian duty to insist
that a law be enacted prohibiting
the use of liquor.
But, as before explained, if the act
is not sinful it is outside the juris-
diction Of the Church. If the act
INJURIES society the civil law should
deal with it,-not the Church. The
public welfare may require law
regulating the rate of interest on
money, but it is not matter for &C.
clesiastical interference. In the
same way, the public welfare may
REQUIRE a law forbidding the use OF
liquor, but as its use in modera
tion) is not a sin, this is not a mat
ter for ecclesiastical interference.
The misery and tears of once happy
homes, ruined by drink, appeal so
earnestly for sympathy and help
tina, we are tempted to catch at any
Instrument which holds out even a
mere expectation of relief, but the
danger is that the Church, by in
vading the domain of State-craft,
may forfeit its present place in pub
lie estimation. The Ecclesiastical
establishment depends for support
on voluntary contribution, and this
will be largely withheld by worthy
citizens whenever they come to re-
parf church influence as an element
in political elections. The PROPOSE
ton as above stated is,-whether
the Church should ask for 4 law to
forbid that which the Bible does not
prohibit D.? If to drink moderately
is not a sin, should the Church en-
deavor to influence the elections in
order to procure a civil law forbid
ding drink 1t is obvious that the
moment we admit that the use OF
stimulant is not intrinsically wick
ed. then church action cannot be
asked except on the ground that she
may concern herself about matters
of social eXpediency and if the
Church, basing her action on social
expediency, may influence elections
to accomplish prohibition, then she
may with equal propriety concern
herself about other economic propo-
sitions;-as for example, the rate OF
interest on money. 1t is needless to
say, that the geuious of this age will
not tolerate the mingling of religion
and politics, it is needless to say,
that for the church to concern her
self about Il matter which is not in
trinsically sinful, would be fatal to
the prosperity of the Ecclesiastical
ESTABLISHMENTS.
But again, if drinking in modera
ton be not sinful. law to prohibit
the use ofintoxicants is contrary to
the spirit Of Christian liberty and
the right ofprivate judgment. Paul
would say, Il will drink no wine be
cause my brother stumbleth," but
Paul would not say, MY brother
shall rot drink" One man cannot
make his estimate of moral duty
law to another man. My neighbor
is my equal in intelligence, general
conseientiousnessa and Christian ear